Talk:Wolf attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

What on Earth has happened to the rest of the list? It can be seen in edit mode, but doesnt display on the main article!129.12.230.169 19:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So how many of these are actually werewolf attacks? Lisa the Sociopath 05:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh ... I doubt there's a source that can answer your question at present. Bearerofthecup (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What on earth... Has anyone actually read the references on this page... I think it needs to be more neutral

What on earth... Has anyone actually read the references on this page... I think it needs to be more neutral —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.224.145 (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is already neutral. Here are some quotes;

Nevertheless, with the exception of one attack on a French shepherd in 2001, modern Western Europe has had very few attacks and no recent fatalities. "Lupus," a German group of wildlife biologists says it has documented 250 encounters between people and wolves in the Lusatia region and there were no problems in any of the cases.

When settlers began colonizing the continent, they noticed that though the local wolves were more numerous than those in Europe, they were less aggressive. In Canada, an Ontario newspaper offered a $100 reward for proof of an unprovoked wolf attack on a human. The money was left uncollected. Though Theodore Roosevelt considered the large timber wolves of north-western Montana and Washington to be equal in size and strength to Northern European wolves, he noted that they were nonetheless much shyer around man.

However, wild wolves are often timid around humans, and usually try to avoid contact with them, to the point of even abandoning their kills when an approaching human is detected. Dark hyena (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the anonymous poster 81.158.224.145 above, at least in part. This is because at least some of the sources appear to be of questionable reliability. For example, reference 41 (http://www.wolfsongalaska.org/Wolves_South_Asia_man_eating.htm) would appear on first glance to be a very reliable reference because that webpage's content is a direct copy of a 1996 New York Times article which states that pathologists believe a wolf (or wolves) killed a child (Anand Kumar) via examination of tooth and claw marks.

However, a closer reading reveals that this same article also states that these same Indian villagers also reported seeing werewolves and seeing Pakistani infiltrators dressed-up as wolves. One wolf attack witness (Sita Devi) reported that the wolf involved "rose onto two legs until it was tall as a man. It was wearing a black coat, and a helmet and goggles." Ms. Devi then goes on to claim that that "wolf" was actually a human. Therefore, these wolf attack "witnesses" can hardly be considered reliable sources of information - and some of these witnesses deny that wolves were involved anyway (whatever their reliability may be).

Also, this article states that Indians have been exposed to Western wolf fables (such as Little Red Riding Hood), so the attitude of at least some Indians would most likely be anti-wolf (not pro-wolf). Therefore, I cannot see why Indian villagers would deny that a wolf attack occurred if one actually did.

Add to all of that the article's claim that the wolf involved in Mr. Kumar's death (the one examined by pathologist) weighed 100lbs. That would be an exceptionally large specimen for an Indian wolf; 100 lbs is more in the weight range of a Yellowstone or western Canadian wolf. While it is possible that such a large Indian wolf exists, it is not likely. Overall, I cannot accept this article as a good source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.191.55 (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

-- Actually, a lot of these sources are bizzare conspiracy sites:

1. Anything by this guy: http://personal.inet.fi/luonto/mikael.broo/Policy.htm#_Toc126561245 : about as reliable as 9-11 Truther, posing a global conspiracy among wildlife scientists. 2. http://www.prosts.com/Article-Wolf-Attacks.htm - another conspiracy theory site, trying to save the human species of all things, done in the charming 1994 fashion of personal webpages.

I will probably delete all material these reference.

The "Ranch" magazine had a polemical piece who again knew better than the scientists, and the magazine itself is currently busily decrying "Obama's All-Out War on the Foundation of America", so hardly a stellar reference.

Further, some are broken links: http://wolfcrossing.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/wolf-in-russland-14-02-09-001.jpg

Lastly, the Joel Carnegie case here is presented as having been concluded as being done by wolves, whereas the article on the incident itself says otherwise. This too will need to be adjusted.

75.156.15.18 (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hardcore

I swapped the old picture for a new one in order to make this article look a bit fresher, as the other is already in use at Wolf. Bearerofthecup (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

picture not relevant?

The beast of gevaudan is hardly appropriate to the article, as it's unlikely to have been a case of wolf attacks and the animal in the image is clearly not a depiction of a wolf. Don't we have a picture of a wolf or supposed wolf attack victim that could go there instead.

I'm well aware, as i'm sure the rest of you are, that there's a few agenda pushers around the wolf articles atm pushing the opinion that the old folklore evil-wolf archetype is somehow an accurate depiction of wolf behaviour. But do we really need to pander to them by using the beast of gevaudan as our only image? 86.162.139.196 (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Are these more to your satisfaction?

I'm well aware, as i'm sure the rest of you are, that there's a few agenda pushers around the wolf articles atm pushing the opinion that the old folklore evil-wolf archetype is somehow an accurate depiction of wolf behaviour.

Where is the old folklore? The article only concern's itself with historical accounts.

Dark hyena (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, 86.162.139.196, take a muscle relaxant or something, and admit that you're an agenda pusher yourself. The only reason I made the change was to mitigate the tackiness of re-using a picture from Wolf. However:

1) The Beast of Gévaudan was a wolf.

2) Therefore, a depiction of the Beast of Gévaudan is a depiction of a wolf.

If you find the change too traumatizing, the indomitable Dark hyena has presented some excellent alternatives. I actually prefer hyena's first suggestion, NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, to the picture I added (kudos by the way, hyena).

Bearerofthecup (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll change it now, though the Gevaudan picture could still be used for it's own article.Dark hyena (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "NO" :
  • {{cite web | url = http://www.lcie.org/Docs/Regions/Baltic/Linnell%20AZL%20Wolf%20attacks%20in%20Fennoscandia.pdf | title = Is the fear of wolves justified? A Fennoscandian perspective | work = | publisher = Acta Zoologica Lituanica, 2003, Volumen 13, Numerus 1 | accessdate = 2008-05-09}}
  • {{cite web | url = http://www.lcie.org/Docs/Regions/Baltic/Linnell%20AZL%20Wolf%20attacks%20in%20Fennoscandia.pdf | title = Is the fear of wolves justified? A Fennoscandian perspective. | work = | publisher = Acta Zoologica Lituanica, 2003, Volumen 13, Numerus 1 | accessdate = 2008-05-09}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Man-wolves.jpg

The image File:Man-wolves.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wolf vs. wolf-hybrids

I've read somewhere that since wolves mostly avoid humans and settlements, that many of the historical wolf attacks were possibly wild dogs or dog-wolf hybirds that would be less fearful of humans. It could be suggested that this view is just a modern re-write of history now that wolves aren't 'evil' but it could also be true. hybrids could be larger than wild wolves. I can't recall what book I read that in, but I'll look for it. Thought it might be worth mentioning at the top. comments?Paddling bear (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue that simply dismissing past wolf attacks as the work of hybrids is pure speculation, and reveals a habit of applying the beahviour of shy American wolves to the realities of other nations, which do not share the same history of liberally distributing firearms and killing wolves all year round, as opposed to Eurasia, where wolf hunts were only done at certain times and by select individuals. The only time I've heard of definitive proof of hybrid responsibility was on the Gevaudan case, and that was only because of a necropsy, and the testimony of countrymen who suffered its attacks who insisted it wasnt a wolf.Mariomassone (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Without reliable sources documenting this speculation (where did you read it), doing so would constitute original research. Kansan (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, Mariomassone, a number of hunters and wolf experts examined the carcasses of the animal killed by Antoine de Beauterne and the animal killed by Jean Chastel, and concluded that they were wolves. Not to mention the hundreds of Gévaudanais who saw them over the years and, as pastoralists, recognized them immediately as wolves. Hybrids were common among dog owners in Gévaudan and hybrid characteristics would have been noted in records.

Bearerofthecup (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Russians under attack by maurauding packs of wolves

Has anyone seen these videos in Russia? Apparently, wolf attacks are becoming an epidemic in greater Moscow.

Look at the first video, though. There are wolves marauding a grocery store parking lot in search of groceries in broad daylight!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c50_1287081631

And here is a video of a pack of wolves hunting a police officer on the highway!

http://www.asylum.co.uk/2010/10/15/russian-policeman-escapes-from-pack-of-wolves/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk3ibIGKTYA&feature=player_embedded

What is going on in Russia? Will these stories reach North America and Western Europe? I was hoping to find more information online, but nothing came up; only this namby-pamby wikipedia submission about how "rare" wolf attacks are. Either this is a very big story that the media has been ignoring or whoever wrote this article did not do their homework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.189.125 (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Only a viral ad campaign for vodka: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsrORuKe7mY 77.188.101.149 (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

expand

Proposal:

• Broaden the scope of this article from "fatal wolf attacks only" to "notable/important wolf attacks."
  • Reason: So that we may include non-fatal attacks readers should know about. Chrisrus (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Counter proposal:

• Cut the article up into separate articles focusing on specific countries, including both fatal and notable non-fatal attacks. That way this article here doesn't become too inflated.Mariomassone (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess it depends how many non-fatal attacks there are. You are familiar with many more of the available WP:RSes on this topic than I. About how many are we talking, total, would you say? And of those, how many are dull or trivial things whose inclusion in this article might not constitute article improvement, and how many are like this, for example: http://metro.co.uk/2012/11/12/grandma-in-russia-kills-wolf-with-bare-hands-and-axe-618252/ We don't have to do another table or add it to the existing ones, we could just have a short separate prose section with a few notable examples to make that point that the result of wolf attacks is not always what one might guess. If I could post a mock-up here on the talk page in the next few days, would you be willing to take a look? Chrisrus (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Shandong

The map in the Grey Wolf article says that wolves don't live in Shandong. Well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.26.120.40 (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Doubtful Reports

There are 98 reported attacks listed. It appears that of these, five, more or less, were clearly confirmed by modern wildlife biologists, and nearly all of these were attacks by captive wolves. Many of the remaining reports appear as hearsay and are without scientific value.

I clicked on one promising-looking source and found merely a rabid screed favoring a petition to "de-federalize" public lands in Oregon. So obviously forget that one.

There are many supposed attacks from remote areas in Asia. Doubtless some are correct. But from what I've seen of the Indian press, much if it is highly unreliable, as are government reports in China. As I understand it, in many of these regions there is widespread belief in witchcraft and magic, making observations by natives potentially unreliable.

There are also many, many reports from the dim reaches of history. For Heaven's sake, why is there nothing on the Wolf of Gubbio? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.95 (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Junk

Graves' book on wolves in Russia has never been reviewed nor even mentioned by a reputable publication. It's apparently laughable.

This article is riddled with pure junk.

It probably can't even be salvaged.

A few examples:

"Range Magazine" is an unreliable source.

"Pro Save The Human Species" is an unreliable source.

"Abundant Wildlife Society of North America" is an unreliable source.

"W.I.S.E." is an unreliable source.

"Skinny Moose" is an unreliable source.

"FreePress Kashmir" is probably an unreliable source.

A letter from "Lars Mangus Hagelstam" is an unreliable source.

Unpublished rural "church records" from the 18th Century are an unreliable source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.95 (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS

I just found the following on Google Scholar, so we normally assume assume that they are WP:RS:

1. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=wolfrecovery
2. http://re.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Large%20Carnivores%20and%20Human%20Safety.pdf
3. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40510359?uid=3739832&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102588725781
4. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13921657.2003.10512541#.UioH-r7D_mI
5. http://books.google.com/books/about/Wolves_in_Russia.html?id=q2ImAQAAMAAJ

Chrisrus (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure that in itself if Google Scholar --essentially a robot-- scoops something up one can therefore infer much about its contents.

Presumably this article is about animal behavior, a science,& so peer-review comes to the fore in the proper selection and weighting of "reliable sources." This is separate from elimination of unreliable sources.

Only one of these sources you mention was on in the shameful list above it-- that would be the book on wolves in Russia. It's reasonable to suppose that if that particular work had any significance to the study of animal behavior & biology, then relevant publications would have reviewed it. Perhaps you can check Google Scholar.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you interested in re-writing this article? There are several peer-reviewed peers available, and we have news reports and such that are also WP:RS. Chrisrus (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice board

I put something up on the RS notice board, which is probably useless.

To answer a question, privately asked: In my view, an 1888 item from a defunct newspaper (which I haven't read) is a historical document, whatever else it may be. As such, perhaps it could be considered a "primary" source, but if so, a great example of why use of primary sources should require considerable caution and back-up with secondary sources.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Why should this article exclude events cited only to WP:RS news reports, while other such articles, (List of fatal bear attacks in North America, Fatal dog attacks in the United States, Coyote attacks on humans, and so on) are allowed to include them? We have been collecting all kinds of fatal and other notable animal attacks on humans from news media, not to mention all other kinds of events known to Wikipedia only through news media, yet for some reason this article should disallow such events? Chrisrus (talk) 06:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of material

This is an article on animal behavior, a science, and as such, included information ought to be scientifically verifiable. I removed a portion of the material that doesn't (can't) meet this standard. Assuming my premise is correct, then there is much more work to do.

If my premise is somehow mistaken, and this article is NOT about science, then please elaborate and explain reverts or edits based on an alternate premise. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Science, yes, but also history. We know about these events through not only scientific but also historical documentation.

The problem seems to lie in the fact that many experts are also enthusiasts. When you love something, you tend to know more about it than people who don't care about the topic. The world's greatest experts on a topic often love the subject and would repress negative information about or try to portray it in a certain, biased way.

Wolf experts are mostly wolf lovers and can be quoted as calling them "majestic" or state that it's important to save them and help them expand. We do not pass along these quotes. They make many statements of fact that we include, but when they say they are "majestic", we choose not to pass that along to our readers because that's not a fact, that's how the expert feels about wolves. Neither do we pass on their opinions that they are important and good and beautiful and that everyone should support foundations that promote their re-introduction. We just deal in facts.

Many wolf scientists are out to save the wolves where they live and to reintroduce them where they do not. This is going to be very difficult to do if the public know about these incidents. The public would tend oppose the wolf lover's agenda if they knew that these things have happened. So they do not pass along the information in these news reports and historical sources to the people, explaining that they as scientists cannot confirm their authenticity. But we do pass on the information from news reports to the people because we do that all the time all over Wikipedia in articles on all types of subjects. We don't just cite scientific sources, we also accept historical sources. So many wolf experts ignore or deny these events, we do not and should not. Chrisrus (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

politics etc

See, now you're almost immediately getting into your OWN politics on the topic.

You say scientists are ignoring data. Can you back up that statement with a reference? Perhaps you mean that political, wolf advocacy groups are ignoring data? I would imagine so. Just as anti-wolf groups do.

I've suggested that in lede, we include info from Alaska Wildlife Dept. (perhaps not entirely neutral and nonpolitical, but at least an agency nominally driven by science), about a non-trivial number of wolf attacks accepted by a modern biologist, based on well-defined criteria.

Now, as to history sources, one can get, for an extreme example merely used for illustrative purposes, any number of historical documents from "authorities" confirming instances of witchcraft... (even to the present in parts of Asia).. making use of them in an article concerning witchcraft history is certainly not impossible. But NOT in the way historical documents have been used here.

You ask me to back that up with citations:

http://sites.sinauer.com/groom/article.php?id=24 says "The phrase “there has never been a documented case of a healthy wild wolf attacking a human in North America” became the mantra of individuals trying to create a more positive image of the wolf."

Yet http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn90059522/1888-03-08/ed-1/seq-5/ is a documented case of a pack of wild wolves eating two people alive, with an witness and investigation from a 1888 newspaper. Both facts can be simultaneously true if the word "documented" means "documented to the satisfaction of wolf scientist" or some such definition that says the newspaper report does not constitute documentation. Chrisrus (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

There is still LOTS of work to be done on this article. If one goes about the work as a political statement, then the article might remain poor quality. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

reverts

I see there are two other editors who disagree with me, although they haven't tried to explain their views. In fact, one revert note said that I hadn't explained my edits.

Obviously my efforts have been insufficient. I will back off the article and perhaps suggest a dispute resolution of some sort. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wolves in Russia book

I must correct myself. There is a review of this I found via ProQuest in a professional journal. However, as book is written by a linguist and is based largely on anecdotes collected

from strangers, I think it should receive little weight.

My point about referencing historical documents as if they can be fully relied upon as purely factual still stands. The Bible says Jesus walked on water. I don't buy it, but hey, they published it so it's source.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent??

Perhaps some objective criteria can be established with regard to science vs. unverifiable historical documents.(See witchcraft, Jews & etc.). For one example among others: Ought one accept unpublished 16th Century rural church records as scientific account?

Significant aspects of this article cite science. Certain other aspects of this article, which are extensive, amount to a mere political screed with little regard for science. Ought I defer here to "consensus" of several people? Or ought I seek other views?

76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Note the source here numbered 62 and 64. This is apparently part of series of unpublished & perhaps quixotic letters to the European Commission by Magnus Hagelstam, whose credentials are unestablished. In these letters, Hagelstam complains that "Finnish conservation authorities, scientists and publicly funded conservation organizations are producing slanted and outright false information to the Commission, presenting the wolf as an endangered species and one that the rural population can learn to live with." And elsewhere "a destructive ideology is spread in the EU and in USA through lies and despotism."

In other words (I think), Mr Hagelstam sees a conspiracy theory.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Re-write coming up

Just to calm some tempers here, I've been re-writing the article in my sandbox, disavowing the cases reported in the right wing blogs and Hagelstam letters, unless they're reported elsewhere on more reputable sources. Note that so far I have only been working on the lists and not the body of text itself. Mariomassone (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent.

Anything we can only support with "Groundhog Day at the Wolf Wars" has to go, you'll agree, but let's try to find its references. I wonder if you saw I found the 1880 Olsen newpaper report, but not the 1770 smallpox Indians cited to Peter Kalm. I found the book, [here], but I gave up because at this point I don't think the 1770 smallpox Indians are in that book. I could be wrong, because Google Books are hard for me to search, so you or any reader of these words is welcome to try.

Have you found the 1829 Inuit woman? I was going to try tonight. Chrisrus (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a reference on page 150 of that book, and a mention of wolf on the same page, but I can't see enough in snippet view to really decode what is being discussed.--TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 04:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I had the same problem. You may have noticed that it's not page number 150 as printed, but the one hundred and fiftieth page of the Google Book, which seems to include the title pages and such. Chrisrus (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

needs work

Thanks. CITATION LIST IN THIS ARTICLE IS A MESS. This is not really open to dispute. A great many citations mention dead links. Some of this material remains available at other links.

Please consider also disavowing the cited left wing blogs.

Thorny issue that CAN be disputed is historical citations. Simply implausible that this article's editors have personally visited various rural churches in N. and eastern Europe to view these purported unpublished sources from 16th Century or when ever. SO WHAT works are TRULY BEING CITED??? At best, we have notes from un-cited source.

I imagine similar dishonest thing is operating with this article's non-English citations. I suspect they are drawn mainly from Will Graves, although Graves' work itself is said to lack sourcing and his deep POV and credentials can be debated, along with editor, the dubios Geist.

That said, I personally DO think deep historical sources are valuable and interesting. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a question - Who are you? I do not trust people who cannot be bothered to register. It is too easy to sockpuppet or stage a pseudo-debate this way, so who is behind 76.250.61.95? Graham1973 (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You edit under you name and date of birth, he edits under his IP address, which, if you Google it, is in East Lansing. So let's call him Michigan. Either case, we still don't know who you are. Try ignoring who posts or edits and focus solely on what is said and done. Chrisrus (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

76.250.61.95, can you reply to our conversations instead of constantly creating new sections? It makes it impossible to follow the discussion otherwise. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 04:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

76.250.61.95, none of us have been looking through 16th century church records, they are simply cited in books. You may dismiss them as unreliable, but that's not a view taken by the Norwegian Institute of Nature Stuies (the group that brought us The Fear of Wolves: A Review of Wolf Attacks on Humans). Here's their position: Given that being killed by a wolf is a very unusual event it is unlikely that it would be used in cases where the true cause of death was trying to be hidden (e.g. a suicide). In other words, priests and administrators would have little to gain by claiming that somebody was killed by a wolf when they weren't. These data sources are regarded as being relatively reliable.Mariomassone (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it may be seen as a "reliable source," although the reports are unverifiable as anything like a solid "fact" as one would ordinarily accept beyond a reasonable doubt. (X dies in the woods; body is scavenged by wolves & obvious BUT wrong conclusion is drawn by an unknown country parson, four centuries ago in back country of Eastern Europe. Will just add worthless personal opinion: that in face of death, people tend to get unreliable.)

We are looking at a large region of Europe with sizable population over a period of centuries beset by continual epidemics large and small, and coming up with basically a tiny number of cases(statistically speaking) that are extremely wild exception. Speculating personally here, perhaps what is ferreted out from "historical record" of many millions of deaths, is just meaningless statistical noise in death reporting. For example, can one find a greater number of deaths in "the record" of this period ascribed to witchcraft? Jew-eating babies? Etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.95 (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It may be that the Norsks were attempting to draw patterns from the aggregate, rather than significance from individual incidents.

I just don't think it's responsible to present each incident from a deeply obscure sources as historical "fact" without at least some kind of disclaimer. ("Relatively reliable" compared to what?) Maybe I'm wrong about my view of how to treat primary historical documents. Maybe the Norsks were wrong? I guess if it's published by somebody, anywhere, no matter the context, then my concern is a totally moot point and it's a "Wiki-fact?"

Also the citations perhaps ought be not a citation of a citation, but rather the Norsk report itself, or whatever,

76.250.61.95 (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's not such thing as a witch, and wolves are real, so you must be saying that wolf attacks on humans are not real. So you must be saying that, for example, this never happened. Chrisrus (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

If their good enough for the norsk institutt for naturforskning (which is incidentally pro-wolf), then their good enough for me.Mariomassone (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Abudand Wildlife Society

Seems like this is maybe one or a few people that are on extreme right wing and their view

is dominating content of this article. I've seen in Alberta, and on east side of Olympic Penninsuala, and probably many other locations, that elk are creating public health & safety problems... Yet certain hunter groups go crazy against wolves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Bird Grinnell on the Nature of the Wolf

@User:Mariomassone;

I found this and thought you might be able to use it. It's called "Wolves and Wolf Nature" by George Bird Grinnell.

More recent experts have had more shoulders to stand on; some of them surely have spent more time in the company of wolves than Bird Grinnell. But none of them can claim to have personally interviewed as many homesteaders, woodsman, naturalists, frontiersmen, and so on; people with extensive experience sharing environments with thousands of wolves in widely varied North American contexts. Therefore, in this way, modern wolf experts may not know wolf nature as well as he.Chrisrus (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Missing comments

I'm seeing mentions of edits to the talk page that do not show up when I actually visit the talk page. What gives? Graham1973 (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is strange! What should we do?

edits to this page are not visible when one visits it. Chrisrus (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed The issue seems to have been that the IP put in a ref without adding a reflist. Unfortunately, when I fixed it, because signing was somehow disabled during those postings, it auto-signed me as the author for each. I'll try to insert the appropriate names by comparing edits against the version history, but it will take time and there will be no timestamps, since none were ever generated to begin with. In the meantime, if anyone wants to take ownership of their own comments, that would work too. Snow (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Now I can actually read discussion.

Other reports of deaths

According to Wikipedia, between about the years 1500 to 1800, there were at least 40,000 officially sanctioned executions of witches in "the west."

One can reasonably assume, therefore, that during this period there are many "reliable sources" on actual crimes by actual witches, comparable to, or even superior to, many of the wolf attack reports cited by books and reports currently referenced by Wolf attacks on humans.

Each of these various sources may meet Wikipedia standards, at least regarding primary sources, as may, for example, books by the Harvard Ph.D Jerome Corsi. But nothing necessarily precludes applying a standard here that is higher than nominal minimum Wikipedia definition.

A discussion might focus on reasoned use of primary sources, not least in light of folkloric nature of topic at hand.

In general, my concerns are EXTENSIVELY explained and perhaps reasonable. These issues certainly have not been seriously discussed in any depth on this talk page.

Yet in several weeks since I've raised these issues, content has not been altered apart from my efforts, which have been reverted with comment that my edits are "unexplained." Is this an attempt at irony?

This talk page seems deeply broken. The process isn't working. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I think Wolf attacks on humans is very

minor vehicle for "anti-wolf" faction as exemplified by "Abundant Wildlife Society, which I think is cited somewhere in article, [1]

Presenting unsigned, unformatted comments again...? Graham1973 (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

AWS site presents article on its Web site that goes on and on about pre-modern societies' reports on wolf attacks.

. This feeling is based partly on political comments made by at least one editor above.

Perhaps I can now proceed with editing the article? I gather at least a couple of Wikipedia editors would simply prevent this.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's not such thing as a witch, and wolves are real, so you must be saying that wolf attacks on humans are not real. So you must be saying that, for example, this never happened. Chrisrus (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The abundant wildlife society and such may be removed but statements cited to them should be instead cited to the source from which they came if they are WP:RS. It's my impression that you want to re-write the article to remove all reference to attacks from the newsmedia, is that correct?

A better point is probably how to treat primary sources that are often wildly doubtful. Most of the many sources I flag in this article pre-date "newsmedia."

However, "newsmedia" prior to 1960s in America, was an utter swamp toward which it is rapidly returning. I cannot comment on newspapers, etc., from other countries such as India, other than to note I've had some great, private laughs reading the Indian English press.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.95 (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, taking in this page in its current state, I suspect that the issues you are having with getting your position understood have more to do with your combative tone and the disorderly nature of your argument and formatting on this page than they do with secret agendas or other editors being non-communicative. That being said, I understand your core argument -- sources which meet general verifiability standards may still contain apocryphal accounts, especially with older sources. There is one story that stands out as particularly worth taking with a grain of salt: "11 wolves killed before wolves devour him!!" (ok, emphasizing exclamation marks mine). However, the bulk of this article reads with commendable neutrality and is immaculately sourced. If anything it takes a very reserved position with regard to how common these attacks are. Any culling of the content on the questions of the "sounds exaggerated" variety ought to be minimal and selective. However, I for one am not entirely opposed to adding a comment or two within the body of the article about the nature of the sources, where appropriate. Snow (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Attacks we know from Mader's paper to be lost?

It has been pointed out that WOLF ATTACKS ON HUMANS By T. R. Mader, Research Division, although the first hit I had tonight on a Google Scholar search, might not be less WP:RS because it was published by the Abundant Wildlife Society, a known anti-wolf organization. Therefore, let’s see what claims it’s making and try to track down the sources so that we won’t be citing the AWB, but citing the same sources it cites. That way, we can remove Mader’s paper from Wikipedia yet not lose any wolf attacks that we should be including in this article.

The first claim to fact Mader makes is this: “It has been widely discussed whether a healthy wild wolf has ever attacked a human on this continent. In fact, many say such attacks have never occurred in North America.” Can you, the reader of these words, cite this claim? I think there’s a citation for this claim on this talk page; scroll up.

The second claim he makes is this “History states otherwise. Although attacks on humans are uncommon, they have occurred on this continent, both in the early years of settlement and more recently.”

The first North American fatal wolf attack he lists is the 1888 Olson deaths. We already have a replacement citation for that one in the article, so let’s move on to the next.

The second is John James Audubon’s story about an African American killed and eaten by wolves while two witnesses in Kentucky near Ohio in winter 1830. Mader says this can be found in “The Quadrupeds of North America, 3 volumes. New York, 1851 – 1854”. This is very little help, Mr. Mader! Not no page number, not even which volume! Can you, reader of these words, track down this wolf attack?

The next attack he attributes to George Bird Grinnell, in northwestern Colorado. 1991. An eighteen-year-old girl on her way to milk cows in the morning summer 1881. The girl was saved by her brother but not before being badly hurt. Mader offers “(Grinnell, G.B.; Trail and Campfire - Wolves and Wolf Nature, New York, 1897)” Let’s include all wolf attacks we can cite well; this is important! There is no reason to limit this article to fatal attacks. All attacks significant enough to be recorded by great experts should be included. Chrisrus (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

To save time (and my energy ;) ), please add these further attacks (the fatal ones for now) to my sandbox. Mariomassone (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Very well, but please all readers of these words do be informed that we are moving the discussion there. I would just like to point out, however, that doing so probably reduces the number of people reading the discussion and therefore reduces the chances of getting help tracking down the citations needed for some of these attacks if we are no longer going to be able to use the AWS and other such references. Chrisrus (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Commentary

Listen: this article may have begun life as re-write of screed from "Abundant Wildlife Society," which apparently exists due to a tiny group of deeply paranoid elk hunters in North America. Article doesn't exist to document the science of animal behavior. It' about politics designed to manipulate Wikipedia.

I wish to make two points: This article is about science and yet is deeply political rather than scientific in its provenance and thus sources are suspect: Also, secondarily, that it utterly lacks reasonable context.

A significant part of its sourcing is drawn from weird, POV-type sources, rather than the small community of legitimate wildlife biologists.

Regarding context: I certainly know that Dog attacks on humans happen each day, often with tragic consequences. Highly reliable reports of Deer attacks on humans are almost certainly far more abundant than those concerning topic at hand (especially if you consider "deer" in larger context of species, to include moose, etc). Yet neither article exists on

WIKIPEDIA.

So why does this article exist on WIKIPEDIA? It's merely an argument for killing wolves in a couple of areas of U.S. where disagreement exists.

In part due to its highly doubtful provenance, I merely suggest that this article's sources be severely limited to the few available science papers that are peer-reviewed. Also that citations be accurately attributed to their source, rather than

to the "source of source."

Allow me sarcasm that may be relevant and reasonable: What about articles on rabid Skunk attacks on humans in 15th Century Russia? Raccoon attacks on pre-Columbian native Americans? Or better: Raccoon attacks on humans in post-Nazi Germany? No point.

That's my point. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think you should write different articles for different genders of the humans, the skunks, the raccoons, etc. And in post-Nazi Germany, I think we can all agree that it makes a huge difference what the ethnic and political background of the victims is, so those should need to be separate articles, really. I'm not even touching the age of the victims. Young ones are more tender and delicious. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Better to focus on content? 76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You're allowed sarcasm. There's an option: nominate it for deletion. I can provide an argument: much of the content (wolfish behavior toward homo sapiens) should be in the wolf article, the rest is trivial, of no encyclopedic value. I'm not being facetious, since I am leaning that way myself. (As an IP editor you cannot start such a discussion, but someone could do it for you.) Or you could hope that a discussion on this talk page bears fruit. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

To destroy this article, start a deletion discussion, not by editing it. But deletion request will fail because we have articles such as bear attack, dog attack, shark attack, dingo attack, tiger attack, killer whale attacks on humans, cephalopod attack, coyote attacks on humans, and so on. So we also have wolf attack.

Thank you for pointing out that the article needs work, but we have several good WP:RSes here and are working to replace the weaker ones by tracking down thier references and using those, where appropriate. So your objections have had a positive impact. Chrisrus (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

break

Thanks. So to cite the citation you found in a book or article is doubtful and perhaps a bit dishonest at best. If you want to cite the book or article, then do so. Or go off to Russia and look up the hand-written church records.

This evening, I briefly discussed the use of primary sources with a history professor. I directly asked whether a country pastor's record of a wolf attack from 300 years ago could be considered a "fact" that could translate into science of animal behavior. He said ideally, one would look for corroborating records, then apply judgment and consider the context. He mumbled something about "residual animism" in pre-modern Europe and concluded by saying essentially, "there is no simple answer to your question and I am not a scientist."

Somebody here says that talking with "country folk" or whatever, provides better insight

into animal behavior than those gained by biologists. I've spoken with a fair amount of "country folk." They tell me that auto insurance companies are secretly financing government introductions of mountain lions to reduce payouts in deer-auto collisions. A fair number believe the United Nations has a military base in Texas and it's only a matter of time.... 76.250.61.95 (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Where are we citing a country pastor's record from 300 years ago?

The references we are trying to track down in Mader's paper and such are the published sources he refers to. We aren't going to be able to cite direct conversations with witnesses or victims he might have had or documents he personally has. They'd have to be published somewhere else. Otherwise we'd be publishing his original research. We can only transfer citations for those attacks from his paper to published sources that he cites.

I didn't say that talking with "country folk" provides better insight into animal behavior than that gained by biologists. I said that a biologist with access to contact to many different kinds of people who have lived with wolves in their environments in many different contexts might know more about the relationship between people and wolves than a biologist without that. Biologists interested in the relationship between species and people in an environment do interviews with people there that have direct experience with said animal and, by doing that and other things, they arrive at findings and then publish them somewhere. We should use published sources, only. If those sources based their findings on primary sources such as church records or whatever, and then published those findings some in some reputable place, we should use it. Chrisrus (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The article directly cites four "church records" from long, long ago. The Norsk paper seems to a signicant extent build around these kinds of records. God knows where some of the other articles and books are getting their information.

Also, despite Wikipedia policies, many newspapers were notoriously unreliable sources of information even into the mid-20th Century period. For example, Hearst newspapers treatment of the Spanish-American War amount to valuable documents of some sort, but may tell little about historical events. In some sense even reliable contemporary news reports are merely "primary sources:" As the saying goes, "a first draft of history."

Chrisrus has said above that he believes scientists seek to suppress relevant information.

I've merely said, consistently, that this article is about animal behavior, a science, and sources should carefully reflect this.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who added the church records, but unless they're included in the other Scandinavian documents, they won't be added. Mariomassone (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

New and Major compromise proposal

Argument that article is "about science" is something You Can't Win (book). Available suggested compromises I find are unsatisfactory.

Let's fundamentally change and very much BROADEN FOCUS of this article to include folklore. Let's define in lede that topic includes science, history and folklore (also politics????) and define each discrete element of article. If nothing else is clearly an important topic of folklore and to ignore this is in some sense dishonest. Regarding "history," many sources are of difficult nature, which should be explained in article, along with a distinction of topics of science and folklore & etc.

Adding category of "folklore" (politics???) opens up sources very widely. It adds valuable perspective on the topic of "wolf...etc"

To start, I suggest, at minimum, that this article include an account of Wolf of Gubbio. This is among the most extremely compelling, culturally significant and enduring stories of wolf attacks on record, and I assume well-sourced in church records. I suspect it reflects some sort of actual wolf attack on humans, along with various miracles of St. Francis (adding, appropriately, topic of religion).

I am here being utterly serious. This change of focus would lend valuable context to the article and highlight its basic ambiguity. It would also open the article to many, many sources that are currently utterly neglected or in dispute.76.250.61.95 (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It depends. There's the long-standing and common precedent of the "In Popular Culture" section, pretty much always tagged onto the ends of articles. Something like that has proven impervious to objection. If the effect on the reader is to depict wolf attacks as mere myth, I'd revert because there were two boys killed this July in Kashmir. Chrisrus (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

In principle, I don't see any reason why such content shouldn't be included; as you say, it can only serve to provide context and such elements seem consistent with the title of the article to me. But I do have a few caveats. First, as Chrisrus has already pointed out, we can't allow these new sections overwhelm the page and provide the impression that the concept of a wolf attack is completely a product of myth, as this clearly untrue. However, there's no small amount of controversy over the rarity of these attacks -- as you obviously know, since highlighting these conflicting perspectives is clearly a central element of what you are wishing to include here. Providing a section for the history of the debate itself, as well as the pre-existent historical context of the wolf's image throughout the world, can only strengthen the article.

But this brings us to my next caveat -- this will all need to be supported by strong secondary sourcing. And since you are the primary proponent of this new approach and content, a lot of that research and work is going to fall on you. It's one thing for us to agree in the abstract to these additions, but nothing can really be decided until we see the quality of the sources you turn up and the wording of the new content. In any event, it's a good idea to get everyone on the same page and add something of significant value to the article, so I wish you good luck with the effort. If and when I have some time, I'll try to unearth some sources as well; I have a small collection of texts on ecological history, and if I find anything of value therein, I will let you know.

Edited to add: Bear in mind that we do already have this article -- Wolves in folklore, religion and mythology. This does not, of course, preclude adding elements of folklore to this article, given you are proposing a more refined and particular discussion of a particular element of the mythology, but I think you should be prepared to face opposition from those who will find such content here redundant and will argue for keeping a purely scientific focus here. I'd be prepared to put in some significant time trying to convince others of the use of this expansion of perspective. Snow (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

My personal preference has always been for, as you say, a "purely scientific focus." But within the article's 71 notes, there are perhaps a half-dozen "scientific" works cited. The remainder are other than science-based. Removing them is apparently impossible.

Hence a suggested compromise. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, when you put it like that, it doesn't sound at all like an appropriate approach. The references which do not directly cite scientific research are still largely concerned with empirical matters and with the subject of actual attacks, not the mythology surrounding the species. If it is your position that the referenced material is not to be trusted to provide accurate information, then you ought to be taking aim at the reliability of the sources themselves. Of course you have done a fair deal of this, only to find your impressions at-odds with the consensus view here. If you really wanted to add a "mythological and cultural influences on the perception of the danger posed by wolves" section in this article, it would be defensible, but you'd have to do the leg work of finding valid sources to support the content added. What you cannot do, is add a mythological section unsupported by sources, purely for the purpose of trying to paint the sources that represent actual attacks as apocryphal. Of course, from your comments bellow, it is clear that you never really thought this mythology section was a good idea; you were just using it as a passive-aggressive means to try to leverage the change you wanted to introduce.

Honestly, I don't see any problem with introducing a view that is skeptical of the likelihood of wolf attacks (those views exist out there, amongst preservation groups and in academia), but YOU MUST PROVIDE THE SOURCES. Stop trying to remove content that is well-supported by valid sources (that's not going to happen), or to change the tone of the article to subjects not covered by the sources (that's not going to happen), or to delete it outright (that's just not going to happen) and instead perhaps focus on introducing alternative views so that our readers can be aware that the subject of the propensity of wolves to attack humans is a matter of some debate. Stop trying to tear down useful information and add some instead. Frankly, I don't see this page as particularly anti-wolf; it lists a couple of dozen attacks over a period of centuries, during which billions of human beings and at least hundreds of millions (if not billions) of wolves have coexisted over large portions of the planet -- that to me seems to support the idea that wolf attacks are immensely rare. But it seems as if to you that any reference to a wolf attack as anything but myth is unacceptable, which is frankly bizarre; we know these attacks to have occurred, there's simply a question of how common they are and in what context they are most likely to occur. This article could be augmented to take a closer look at those issues, but nothing you've done has gotten it even marginally closer to that; in fact your presence here so far has frankly been nothing but disruptive and probably more likely to entrench other editors in contrary views than anything. I really think that perhaps you need to take at least a small break from this, familiarize yourself a little better with the process of editing on Wikipedia (particularly with regard to WP:Consensus), and then come back when you've got an approach that tries to provide balance to our representation of the prevailing viewpoints, rather than trying to override the article with your own perspectives, in contradiction to the positions of our sources.

On a sidenote, I'd like to ask that you also pay a little more attention to how you indent/format your posts; it takes a miniscule amount of effort and keeps things from degenerating into the mess that each of the threads you've participated in has become.

Edited to add: It is worth noting that, putting the sources aside, there are a few sections which are not really informed by any sources which could arguably be worded more neutrally, particularly in the lead. Mariomassone's draft is so far missing this section, so it will be interesting to see what he does with it. Mostly that draft seems decent enough, but for the critical "types of attack" section, which sets the tone for describing the context, likelihood, and severity of attacks, there is one important source -- "The Fear of Wolves: A Review of Wolf Attacks on Humans" -- which is no longer to be found at its cited address. This doesn't disqualify it as a valid source, of course, but it would be nice if we could find an alternate location for it, both for our readers and our own editorial considerations, given that it informs arguably the most crucial section of the draft. Snow (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

See Last Entry

I finally agree. Let's NOT compromise with folklore and marginal history.

Instead, definitely let us exclusively employ sources that are "science focused. Forget Little Red Riding hood and stuff about religion. This article exclusively concerns science of animal behavior. Let's remove all other sources.

Thing is, search of title exclusively turns up various, deeply politically motivated weird screeds. And among them, THIS Wikipedia article. That's why this article exists. And why maybe, it ought not exist.

I await promised re-write with much hopeful (and doubtful) anticipation. Deletion may be better answer. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this article is not exclusively about the science of animal behaviour. It is concerned with any facts which are relevant to its title, and scientific, historical, political, cultural, and mythological elements are all permissible, so long as they are well-referenced and contribute something to the understanding of the subject. Even apocryphal tales could be included, so long as they were clearly noted for what they are and are sourced. So, no, we will not be removing perfectly valid content and sources just because they are inconvenient to the perspective you wish to push. If you can prove any sources invalid, that's one thing. But you can't constrain the content of the page and toss out useful information because it runs contrary to what you feel should be the way the wolf is perceived. You keep implying that this page is nothing but politically-motivated misinformation, but frankly there is no other editor here who seems to be nearly as inclined to put their abstract position before the sources than you. If you really want to protect the wolf's image in this article from what you feel is undue maligning, then you should feel free -- no, encouraged -- to find the appropriate sources which present contrary views and add that perspective. But so far you seem to be unwilling or unable to do that, and instead are focusing on trying to dismantle the work of others or outright eliminate this article. And at the risk of sounding very redundant, that's just not going to happen; this page is notable and it is well sourced and does not meet any other criteria justifying deletion. The best you are going to get in this situation is some balancing of the tone (not that I think this page really even needs it that much) and even that only if you or another is willing to do a fair bit of research to turn-up the appropriate sources. And if that slight change seems like small return on that much work, all I can say is "Welcome to Wikipedia." In the meantime, please do refrain from suggesting courses of action which you do not actually support simply as a means of voicing your disapproval of the current state of the article or to try to undermine content you do not approve without a good policy reason. Snow (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Put this on your watchlist:

Remember: User:Mariomassone is re-writing this page here, so let that inform discussion on this talk page. Chrisrus (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I really can't work my way entirely through Snow's indignant screed.

Like me, first he wants article to be "science focused."

But then says it can include ANY information he deems relevant to this aspect of animal behavior; scientific, apocryphal or whatnot.

Optimally, if you want, as highly dominant editor Chris has claimed here to hope, that "the public will not accept wolf-lovers' agenda if it is known that wolves attack humans," then merely sticking to science literature is more than adequate for this goal. This despite Chris's stated believe that science suppresses evidence on this topic.

Good bottom line is that pseudo-factual list of attacks should be deleted or severely cut based on sources.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

At no point did I say I wanted anything with regard to this article, and certainly not that it should contain only a scientific bent. I'm simply trying to explain to you some of the policies we operate by here that you clearly have a limited understanding of, and I actually supported your notion of expanding the focus of the article before it became clear that you never actually wanted to follow through on this approach but were simply using the idea of it as part of your scatter-shot attempt to leverage change to the tone of the article. But make no mistake, content on this or any other article is not restricted to information gleaned from peer-review articles; this is an encyclopedia and any approach to the subject that is likely to provide general use value to our readers is permissible and appropriate -- again, assuming that valid sources support that information. So, you see, you actually took my position to be the opposite of what it was, despite the length at which I explained the policy issues involved. Look, are there two or three sources here that could probably be done away with on the basis of weak qualification for RS? Yeah, probably, and we can debate those. But the vast majority of the sources are on this article are valid citations and you're just not going to get them removed. As I've repeated ad nauseum now, your best bet if you want readers to understand your perspective that wolf attacks are over-reported is to gather valid sources supporting this position. I don't know if you've tried and failed to find any or if you are just unwilling to try, but if you really want to represent the skeptic's view of the propensity of wolves to attack humans, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face by concentrating on trying to remove content that is protected by policy instead of being proactive and providing a contrary position that will also be protected by policy. And for the record, this is not a wolf-lover or wolf-hater's issue, at least not for any editor that has their priorities straight. Snow (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear 2 person "consensus"

Chris in particular, is quite explicit in his belief that science follows his deeply private and silly conspiracy theory and cannot be relied upon to describe animal behavior. I gather his other cohort in the 2-person "consensus" has a very similar view.

The "consensus" here simply lacks ALL credibility.

Obviously, the article is complete mess and dictated by deep ignorance. This demonstrates how Wikipedia can certainly produce a great deal of nonsense and drivel. Why not then, just re-post Abundant Wildlife Society's idiotic article here (which very much serves as its basis), and be done with it?

76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear IP, why didn't you just respond to the topic at hand rather than start a new section, which you've been repeatedly told not to do? Kind regards, Mariomassone (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I do feel that creating new sections it makes editing the discussion much easier for all of us. For example, to reply to you is now very simple. Had I not created a new section, I'd need to scroll through vast amounts of discussion. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well once again you are substituting what you think works best for what is common practice or policy for editing on Wikipedia. Look, your approach and behaviour here has been top to bottom disruptive, but your comments immediately above have clearly crossed into violation of a pillar policy that you need to read immediately if you are to continue editing on this project. If you cannot participate here without resorting to personal attacks on other editors when they hold an opposing view -- or rather more specifically, if you cannot make arguments based solely on content policies -- you will be asked to not contribute at all. But honestly, given your attitude here thus far and how you have responded to previous requests to familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia operates, I rather suspect you'll not head this advice before it's too late. Snow (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

In his defense, he is right that the article needs work and because of him that's being done now, so don't discourage him too much. Chrisrus (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You do have a point, but that's a part of why his belligerence is frustrating. I came to this discussion as a result of the RFC, but it was a happy coincidence that I happen to have some previous experience with and understanding of the debate surrounding wolf aggressiveness. And despite his perception of my motives (and those of anyone who doesn't agree 100% with his approach), I'm actually quite sympathetic to the idea that the species has been historically vilified to justify mass exterminations and that this continues to colour the perception of the species even today. That's why when he suggested (insincerely, as it turns out) expanding the scope of the article, I put my support behind the notion, because that's what is really needed here -- not needless bickering about a list (that is really quite short when you consider the scope and history of the subject), but rather a discussion of the context of historical reporting on wolf attacks. There are scholars who have built their careers on the subject, so sourcing would not be a problem. But he doesn't want to do the work to actually add something to the page, not even in-so-far as finding the sources for someone else if he doesn't care to write it himself. He's styled himself an expert on the subject, making clear that he finds the page and the other editors here to be ignorant and/or ill-intentioned if they disagree with him even in part, and yet he won't engage in any meaningful discussion beyond the objective he's set his eyes on. He doesn't seem to realize that even for those of us who would like to move the article in general direction of his position A) have a process that we have to follow and policies to adhere to and B) don't necessarily think the article should be taken to the polar opposite end of the spectrum. Wolf attacks happen -- they are rare and aberrant behaviour, but they do happen. But that's apparently pro-hunter "screed" to say even that much. And again, he won't discuss it, despite initially friendly attempts by those here to engage him. He doesn't seem to understand that without that discussion radical changes won't be made. I say if he feels he knows the really real truth that he submit some drafts for discussion, rather than just trying to carve out a huge amount of the references, most of them certainly passing the bar for reliable sourcing, and content. You don't gain balance or really anything by removing information that way and dumbing down the discussion of the subject -- you gain balance by giving additional context and providing all of the voices of the legitimate debate on the subject. If he was really interested in rehabilitating the wolf's image on this article (which is clearly his only objective in being here, though this does not stop him from tossing about accusations of bias at other, more broadly accomplished editors) then he would see that there's a bigger opportunity here to accomplish that. But instead he seems more intent on getting exactly his way on a very narrow objective. I'm just trying to break him of the notion that he's going to get precisely what he wants and immediately, because that's a problematic idea to take around Wikipedia. Even widely admired and insanely devoted editors don't get that. This guy won't even meet the rest of the (vastly more accomplished) editors here halfway when it comes to basic discussion and formatting guidelines... Look, we all seem to agree here that the article could use some broadening and also some tightening, but as you and I know, that doesn't just happen. But Mario hasn't even barely begun the first part of hat process (volunteering for a task the rest of us probably didn't want), before the IP is bad-mouthing it, without even seeing it. So yeah, the discussion, and hopefully some good changes, might have resulted from his action, but at the present time he is not really contributing anything constructive to either. So until he studies up on the way we operate here -- especially with regards to how we approach other editors here with WP:Civility and good-faith -- and acclimate himself a bit and maybe decides to contribute something aside from criticism and implications ulterior motives and idiocy, he can just sit here and stew as far as I'm concerned, while the real editors do the work. Snow (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Snow: Mere brevity is a wonderful virtue. Failing this, paragraphs create ease of reading, as does the convention of sub-headings.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

@IP in East Lansing, please move your reply to Snow to an appropriate section. Mario has opened this thread to discuss the structure of the article, so the purpose of this thread is to talk about that, only, and specifically not a place for you to reply to a comment in another section to another person about another aspect of this article. Chrisrus (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

1: Confirmed by modern Science; 2: Reports from History & Developing Wrld

That's a way to divide sources. There is an important and obvious distinction to make. If editors don't make this distinction, the intelligent reader will broadly question the article.

Dog and coyote articles don't rely on sources from medieval Euro peasants or cent. Asian tribesmen.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

What about, just to take the most recent example, the Kashmiri boys, and all the rest which we know about only through news reports? Chrisrus (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to put my foot down, and argue that the verification of historical events lies squarely within the competence of historians, not biologists, in the same way most information on black death victims come from historical rather than scientific records. The Norwegian Institute of Nature Research and David Mech's Wolves book appear to have no problem in accepting this. Indeed, most of the skepticism of the historical material appears to stem from largely Americocentric pre-2000 wolf studies. To quote John Linnel: "North American authors have been aware of stories of wolf attacks from Eurasia - but until recently they have not had access to a review as the language barrier has clearly hindered the flow of information. The problem is that in the absence of a full global review many people have attempted to extrapolate the North American experience to the rest of the world. From our review it is clear that the North American experience is not typical and that when considering wolf management and the risk of human safety we need to consider the wolf in toto."

P.S. IP, the coyote article doesn't rely on European church records because coyotes don't live in Europe, and there were no Europeans in the Americas until a few centuries ago. Plus, indigenous people had no writing system, thus it's not surprising that no records were kept.Mariomassone (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Point of Order

@IP in East Lansing, why did you start a new section? Have you changed the topic, "Structure", to something else? Please don't start new sections without changing the topic or change topics without starting new sections. If you want to start a subsection, do so as I have demonstrated here. Chrisrus (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Very briefly, Chris, due to your recent subhed, I find editing/comment task is substantially eased. Perhaps you are, or not correct. I don't know. Is or/not a big deal.

RFC

Trying to solicit an RFC that may or may not result in additional comment.

Frankly I think there is inadequate range of views represented here. Probably is quixotic on my part. Idea that scientists suppress data suggests to me a conspiracy theory view of world that may be unreasonable. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If one could broaden the RFC list from science to include "culture" and "history" and even "politics" this exercise could be more useful and appropriate. I simply don't know how this may be accomplished. Obviously topic of wolves includes (for many people) something more broad than animal science.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If you were not so belligerent you might find people willing to discuss things with you.Graham1973 (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to get people to comment on. The article reads fine to me, it doesn't seem to have any POV issues i.e. suggesting wolves always attack people or never attack people. Reading above, it seems you are suggesting that all reports of wolf attacks that were not documented/verified by scientists or met their criteria for a wolf attack (witnessed, wild wolf, not provoked, etc) should be removed? In that case, I disagree. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 19:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow either - which suppressed data are you referring to? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Same Question Here. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment of the FRC

What is the issue of the RFC? I see no statement of dispute. The discussion below is about sources. Well, there are wikipedia policies, right? Can the dispute be more specific, please? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the comment above, what is the issue in here? I just see a question, but what is this RfC all about, if there is no conflict, warring or dispute I'm going to mark this as resolved. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 12:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Structure

I need some advice on how to format the article; the Italian and Norwegian sources include graphs and statistics regarding the seasonality of the attacks and age demographics of the victims. Should they have their own section, or should they be included in say the section on non-rabid attacks? Some feedback would be really appreciated. What's missing exactly? Mariomassone (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

As for M's question on sources: Perhaps data should be merely divided between contemporary "confirmed" accounts, and a "historical" section, with brief discussion.

Distinctions can be made between those contemporary data vetted by animal-behavior biologists, and those which are merely accepted from dim historical records.

For those who seek to prove that wolves do attack humans, there are EXCELLENT sources already here, from non-obscure and modern scientific records. This would be the "focus on science" that at least one of the 2-3 editors, besides myself, claims to favor (and that one of these few editors says he deeply doubts).

Stuffing all the interesting and indeed relevant "historical" material without distinction into a "list" of fatalities from last several centuries implies that the reader is unable to make obvious distinctions among the data, which are widely variable in reliability.

This is a shortcoming which severely detracts from credibility and the actual content of this article. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

@Mario + everyone: if separating the article into sections based on geography seems to be how it wants to evolve, that's a reasonable structure to run with. Many sources might be specifically about India or Russia or Alaska, and it would be natural and easy to put them into those categories, some of which later might even spin off into sub-articles someday. Some sources note important differences between New and Old World attacks. This has also the advantage of following the rough outlines of taxonomy, subspecies or Northern/Southern clades.

Separating it into types also seems logical. Captive wolf attacks seem a very different phenomenon from free-ranging wolf attacks. Readers might want to be able to concentrate on one or the other of these.

Captive animal attacks would seem to fall into zoo-type and such on one hand, and pet situations on the other. Zoo-type attacks seem like accidents or negligence, someone leaving a door open or kids or drunks sticking their hands in the cages or something like that. Then you have the phenomenon of people keeping wolves or wolf hybrids as pets. This is where this phenomenon begins to overlap with that fatal dog attacks. Fatal dog attacks in the United States tracks fatal wolfdog attacks already. Oh, and also, there was a least one case of a professional wolf handler who went on a wolf-encounter tour, get your picture taken with my wolf for a donation to save the wolves.

Free-ranging wolf (this term or "unowned wolf" seem safer than "wild wolf", as it's not clear that a captive wolf is not also "wild") attacks would seem to fall into sub-types. Rabid wolf attacks are pretty clearly a thing apart. After all, just about any rabid animal will bite just about anything; it says nothing about wolves per se if a rabid wolf attacks. But experts also speak of provoked/unprovoked attacks, and predatory attacks vs. those which seemed more to be attempts to drive off a threat to a litter of pups or some such. Also, I wonder if you, like me, have run across the usage of the term "lifting"; sneeking into a child's room, taking it with a smothering bite, and making off with it in the night. That is a relatively common type in slum or rural India, it seems, where the houses are simple shacks or tents. This is very different from taking on a trapper or mounted policeman or some such adult. Coyote attacks on humans, for example, divides into "On children" vs. "on adults", both because the sources did so and because it just seemed like very different things in terms of seriousness.

Then there is fatal vs. non-fatal.

Another idea is to go from antiquity to the modern day. This would give an opportunity to pass along to the reader what the sources say about the, if you will, "intellectual history" of the phenomenon: in the past, experts felt this way, then, they learned such-and-such, or attitudes changed, and the sources began speaking in this-and-how terms about it, until today there is the way the discussion among experts has gone of late.

I don't know if that helps. It might just make it more difficult to decide, but I hope it helped. Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to use of paragraphs, I gather that Chris agrees that distinctions may fairly be made among the many, many sources. He may feel, therefore (as I do), that the raw "list" is misleading and deeply inadequate.

Perhaps a list of attacks that haven't been confirmed by contemporary science can be included. That would include nearly everything of the current list.

I think article should focus on the many reports that modern biologists have directly investigated. The remainder of stuff should be labeled, somehow, as... the remainder of stuff open to some question.

Existing articles on dog and coyotes (invoked here for comparison, by the 2 other editors) are focused (reasonable assumption) on data confirmed by contemporary authorities, rather than material that is beyond reach of modern science/public health, including history and "developing world." 76.250.61.95 (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It's my impression that Geist has never produced peer-reviewed work on wolves. When formerly active as a scientist, his research was on ungulates. In retirement, he's taken to personal speculation on wolves based on zero quantifiable data. He wrote an introduction to the book on Russian wolves, authored, I believe, by a retired linguist and based, apparently on much hearsay. It's understandable that Geist would have much to answer for as a scientist.

Further, I think it's a given that science doesn't rely on history, and that historians have methods that have almost no relationship to science, nonetheless apply very involved standards for the use of primary sources.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

IP, next time, please place your responses in the relevant sections. This is getting quite frustrating now.

Graves is a retired linguist, but his book is not based on hearsay, rather on zoological writings on wolves in Russia during the Cold War era that had previously never been translated into English. Indeed, the book Wolves in Russia is included in the International Wolf Center's recommended literature page.

North America does not have a monopoly on the distribution of wolf-based information, and as Boyd and Linnell have noted, the North American experience of wolves is atypical to begin with, and should be used in a comparative sense rather than as an overall point of reference.

The topic of wolf attacks is as much rooted in history as it is in science, just as the topic of past epidemics is. As mentioned before, Linnell and Mech are in agreement on this.Mariomassone (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the editors here are in agreement on that point as well, aside from the IP himself. Frankly I find the line he is trying to draw between what constitutes scientific research and what constitutes historical research to be artificial and arbitrary and not all consistent with the way hard empirical work is done in the field of zoological ecology; historical data is not simply dismissed as unable to contribute to the understanding of the subject simply because it was not observed firsthand and in a controlled environment -- even those who work on the more biological side of things and apply the most rigorous standards would not toss the baby out with the bathwater like that. Yes, all data has to be carefully vetted, but this idea that there's a clean line between the two domains and that we would all agree one which points met the criteria for one versus the other is, frankly, just plain silly. Historical record and scientific inquiry are married deeply in many fields -- this is clearly one. It's not like this is a subject like modern materials science, where only recent contemporary investigation would have something meaningful to say. But ultimately it doesn't really matter what we think in this regard; Wikipedia policy is pretty clear -- this is broad knowledge encyclopedia, not a scientific journal, and we are expected to present all decently cogent perspectives on the matter, and the more varied those perspectives, the better, so long as they are decently sourced and informative. What beguiles me most is why the IP thinks it would be better to hide this information rather than work in additional context to the article and let them make their own determination on the veracity of differing conclusions about the behaviour of the wolf and when and how it has been exaggerated. It's not our job here to determine which is correct or cherry-pick the sources each of us personally feels best followed the scientific method -- that is outside our purview; rather we're only to present the information that does exist and synthesize it as best we can without sacrificing too much detail. There are reasons for that, even aside from trying to set the appropriate tone for the content of the article -- we would surely never all agree which sources represented the "more scientifically sound" selections, which is why we evaluate the validity of such sources in terms of how consistent they are with policy, not how much they agree with our position. Snow (talk) 03:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

To IP address editor in East Lansing

First of all, you'd be more anonymous if you'd sign in under a name such as "MrMysteriouso123" or some such pseudonym of your own invention.

Second, there seems to be no rhyme or reason to your creating of new sections on this page. Please keep the topics together in sections. You don't have to start a new section every time you comment. You can reply to people directly below the post you are replying to. Only start new sections when you want to introduce a new topic or something.

Third, if you want to contribute, go to Mario's sandbox because that's where the revision is being done. I wouldn't recommend editing it directly, first work it out with Mario on his sandbox's talkpage. Editing this page is pointless because it's all going to be replaced soon anyway.

Fourth, Mario will be using proper WP:RSes. He's only going to use the best WP:RSes available. It's what he always does. He goes and collects the sources and transfers what's in them to articles. It's standard operating procedure.

Fifth, if you believe that wolf attacks are only the stuff of fairytales, please stop believing that because it's just not true. Your basic deal seems to be that you don't think wolf attacks are real. Please tell me what I'd have to do to convince you. Let's start with the most recent. The two boys in Kashmir a couple of months ago? Are you saying that neither they nor any of the other attacks happened? How do you explain the reports? Are all these news reporters just making it all up?

Once again, please don't start new sections unless you start new topics. Chrisrus (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious as to whether that is in fact his belief. He's stopped short of saying it for the most part, but it does seem to be the crux of his objection to the known attacks section, part and parcel. Not that any editor's motive should have any bearing on what content is or is not included -- it should be acceptable or not on the basis of the sourcing and consistency with policy -- but it would still be nice to know why he is so adamant. Frankly, as I said above, I think that when a list of attacks by an apex predator number only a few dozen over centuries, that's a miniscule number and the average reader should certainly be able to see that this implies extreme rarity of attacks. So if anything I think that in trying to remove the section he is doing a disservice to the position that wolves are generally aversive to this behaviour. All of that said, one thing that is missing from the current version of the page and Mario's re-write (so far), is a caveat (preferably very early in the lead), explicitly stating that, in the broad context of the wolf's shared ecological history with man, these attacks are extremely rare and aberrant to the normal behaviour of the species, stressing also that most attacks that do occur (and are not caused by rabies) are the result of extreme cases of habituation combined with territorial or food supply stresses. Because while the IP's view is extreme and irreconcilable with the sources, it's also true that the aggression of the species was, for a very long time, often over-sold, especially in certain parts of the world, including significantly in the early history of the U.S.. That's historical context that is definitely worth noting, and as it happens, I have some top quality ecological history texts that would provide decent sources. Once Mario has his draft finished, it's worth seeing to. Snow (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Snowrise:

Diane K. Boyd is a wildlife biologist from the School of Forestry at the University of Montana, Missoula. She studies wolves, and has published papers such as "Characteristics of Dispersal in a Colonizing Wolf Population in the Central Rocky Mountains" Journal of Wildlife Management, 63(4):1094-1108. Please read this piece below by her, published as a case study in an important college textbook on the topic: http://sites.sinauer.com/groom/article.php?id=24 It's a short and easy read. An article about her in Sports Illustrated shows her to be a life-long pro-wolf expert who has long lived in Montana in a remote wilderness area with more wolves than people. The paper above as you will see if you read it says people should know that modern naïve beliefs about wolves not attacking people by nature make such attacks more likely, which will in turn will cause anti-wolfism, if you pardon the term, among the people, which in turn will hurt the wolves. The wariness, concern, distrust, that comes with knowing that wolves do attack, on the other hand, will keep people and wolves apart or people prepared and alert, and thereby help Save the Wolves from post-attack backlash:

"Beginning in the 1970s, strong anti-wolf fears were moderated by increased ecological awareness and counter-balanced by the emergence of pro-wolf adoration. The phrase “there has never been a documented case of a healthy wild wolf attacking a human in North America” became the mantra of individuals trying to create a more positive image of the wolf. These educational programs contributed greatly to changing public attitude and enhancing wolf recovery efforts. Wolf–dog hybrids and pet wolves became popular, as people began to idolize wolves as wild, clever, and human-friendly. Ultimately, the elusive wolf of the extirpation era became the wolf of modern memory that people believe represents “normal” wolf behavior...."

".....The wolves of Algonquin and Vargas Island exhibited bold behavior for weeks or months before the attacks occurred. Therefore, those injuries would probably have been preventable if humans had perceived the wolf as a wild predator rather than a thrilling campsite visitor...

...The challenge to wolf managers and conservationists at present is to avoid creating public fear of wolves, yet paint a realistic picture of wolf behavior in the hopes of reducing human–wolf conflicts and subsequent wolf mortality.....

...The conundrum is that we have managed wolf recovery so successfully that conflict situations arise more frequently and we must anticipate potential backlash by the public to avoid slipping back into an anti-wolf fervor. New efforts to educate the public about the nature of wild wolves, particularly emphasizing their differences from domestic dogs are working. People are warned to take reasonable precautions, and reassured that these alone should prevent conflicts with wolves. Still, helping maintain a balanced relationship between humans and expanding wolf populations will remain a significant conservation challenge. " Chrisrus (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there's really nothing in that which I find counter-intuitive or misrepresentative of the facts. I simply think that the entire history of human-wolf interaction and the concordant cultural representation of the species -- from antiquity through the vilification of the colonial and early modern eras, and up into the contemporary over-correction that Boyd refers to -- is necessary contextual information that our readers really need to make sense of varied reports. That's why I've been trying to convince the IP to take a more constructive approach in adding some of that information -- it would surely all come from one-side, but so long as they were valid sources, that's perfectly ok, and others of us here could supply the balance -- instead of just trying to take a hack-saw to the content he doesn't like. Obviously that is a fool's errand, but in any event, the quote you supplied above is actually perfect as a capstone for such a section, once synthesized down a little. But we also need references which discuss the wold-eradication programs of the last two centuries themselves -- which, as it happens, I have. I'll format the references and supply them here first opportunity I get. Snow (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment on RFC

Comment Sorry, but although there seems to be some serious attempt at WP sabotage or trolling going on here, I am not sure what there is to be done, given the current climate. If some of the good-faith participants think it might help, they might consider raising the matter at WikiProject Dogs, and seeing whether the necessary discipline could be imposed. Joining the shouting match at this point in response to the RFC I received seems to me to be futile. Good luck to any constructive participants. I am otherwise occupied at present. Sorry again. [original author will need to resign this]